ATVG Draft

[Coronis]

Well here are the eligible batsmen for this draft (i think this is only really about batsmen who are part time bowlers isnt it) who’d be unable to be picked if considered allrounders. (min 1 wicket per match)

Frank Worrell 69 in 51
Ted Dexter 66 in 62
Bob Cowper 36 in 27
Charlie Macartney 45 in 35
Greg Matthews 61 in 33
Aubrey Faulkner 82 in 25
Tony Greig 141 in 58
Basil D’Oliveira 47 in 44

Obviously Matthews, Faulkner and Greig are allrounders. The rest should probably be decided on.

 

[Shri]

Ugh

He can't qualify as an allrounder because he doesn't match the ar criteria

 

[a massive zebra]

Ugh

He can't qualify as an allrounder because he doesn't match the ar criteria

But they can qualify as batsmen if they are not all rounders, as they average under 50. Is it really that hard to understand?

**** it new rule: The top 6 can't have more than 10 test wickets.

Some people would prefer to choose an all rounder in their top 6 and this rule completely removes the option to pick an allrounder in the top order. I'm going to withdraw from the draft as I'm not happy with the way it is being run and my presence is causing more trouble than it is worth.

Wouldn't be a problem if you all just followed the spirit of the draft instead of nitpicking and have a laugh

If you don't have clearly defined rules that are fair and equitable to everyone, where do you draw the line? The definition of an allrounder is very much open to interpretation and far from binary, so each player may interpret the spirit of the draft differently.

 

[Shri]

See ya

 

[ataraxia]

Maurice Tate if he's considered a bowler rather than an all-rounder.

 

[Line and Length]

I too had Worrell pegged as an all-rounder and think we need a firm ruling rather than having the current situation whereby it is left to the individual's interpretation. As a suggestion, would a batting average over 30 and at least 1 wicket per test be a definition that would fit the bill?

 

[aussie tragic]

As a suggestion, would a batting average over 30 and at least 1 wicket per test be a definition that would fit the bill?

My suggestion is anyone with a batting average > 25.00 that takes > 1.5 wkts per match is considered an allrounder for this draft?

Note: any higher and Hadlee (bat 27.17) and Kallis (1.74 wkts/match) would not be considered allrounders. Any lower and we are taking away the 'bowler who bats a bit' and ' batter that bowls a bit' type of players.

 

[JOJOXI]

My suggestion is anyone with a batting average > 25.00 that takes > 1.5 wkts per match is considered an allrounder for this draft?

Note: any higher and Hadlee (bat 27.17) and Kallis (1.74 wkts/match) would not be considered allrounders. Any lower and we are taking away the 'bowler who bats a bit' and ' batter that bowls a bit' type of players.

I've been silently following from afar and my 2 cents worth would be that it is a good starting point - under that criteria noteworthy all rounders/specialists based on that criteria are

Sanath Jayasuria, Carl Hooper, Bob Simpson, John Reid, Mushtaq Mohammed, Charles McCartney, Gubby Allen, Ron Archer, Mitch Marsh (if he gets picked) are not allrounders

Ravi Ashwin, James Pattinson, Pat Symcox are allrounders

Would probably disagree with a couple particularly with allrounders section under the criteria but better to have something concrete you can all work to that might be imperfect then put forward picks you are unsure about as a couple on that list I'm not sure if I'd count as allrounders or batsman who bowled but I guess at the end of the day for some of those the change in category wouldn't matter in the greater scheme of things. It would matter for Jayasuria though as well as Mushtaq Mohammed, Charles McCartney and Gubby Allen to name a few

 

[honestbharani]

I like Aussie Tragic's idea.

EDIT: Sorry I meant L&L. Batting average of 25 is way too low to be considered an allrounder. 30 sounds better.

 

[Shri]

yeah we should go with @aussie tragic 's take but he needs to explain it to me like i am 5.

 

[honestbharani]

If anyone has more than 1 wicket per match and has a batting average of over 30, they can be considered allrounders IMO. Which is what L&L said, coz otherwise you get into Symcox etc. being allrounders which they never were.

 

[JOJOXI]

As a reference point 30+ average and a wicket per match at least would give you Bob Simpson, Frank Worrell as allrounders

Trevor Bailey, Moeen Ali, Abdul Razzaq, Richard Hadlee, Sam Curran, Goeff Miller as a non-allrounder

Michael Bevan also a non-allrounder because of his insufficient batting numbers as opposed to his bowling.

 

[Line and Length]

24 hours since my last pick. All this talk about all-rounders has me picking Brian McMillan (SA, all rounder, batting @ 39.4 bowling 33.8)

 

[aussie tragic]

My 24 hours is up. I'll take the world record holder with 555 dismissals Mark Boucher + (30.30)

 

[Teuton]

Ben Stokes
I'm guessing he qualifies but let me know if not

 

[aussie tragic]

^ Stokes qualifies as bat <40 and ball >30. I was so close to picking him but waivered at last minute lol

 

[Coronis]

James Anderson

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Mushfiqur Rahim

 

[honestbharani]

Well I was going for Stokes but since he is not available, Andrew Flintoff

 

[mr_mister]

Honestly only thought of Worrell as the 'worst' bat of the 3 Ws, i know very little about his bowling. But the min 1 wicket per match is a good rule

Am happy to change to Larwood and Trumper.

If Worrell is allowed than just Larwood